On 12/4/10 3:38 PM, Jochen Erwied wrote:
> Sunday, December 5, 2010, 12:19:29 AM you wrote:
>
>> Hmmm, what happens if I need 10 years of data, in monthly partitions? It
>> would be 120 partitions. Can you please elaborate on that limitation?
>> Any plans on lifting that restriction?
>
> I'm running a partitioning scheme using 256 tables with a maximum of 16
> million rows (namely IPv4-addresses) and a current total of about 2.5
> billion rows, there are no deletes though, but lots of updates.
>
> Using triggers or rules on the main table in my case showed to be not very
> effective, so I reverted to updating the inherited tables directly. This
> way you still can use a SELECT on the main table letting the optimizer do
> it's work, but do not run into the problem of oversized shared memory usage
> when doing DELETEs or UPDATEs
>
> IMHO if you are using large partitioning schemes, handle the logic of which
> table to update or delete in your application. In most cases extending the
> underlying application will be much less work and more flexible than trying
> to write a dynamic rule/trigger to do the same job.
>
Sounds like my experience exactly, however I am considering forgoing an update altogether, by just combining a DELETE
withan INSERT. I'm not sure how that might affect indexing performance as compared to an UPDATE.
I also had trouble with triggers; but found that if you use the "ONLY" keyword, they work again: see my original post
ofthis thread. In that case, the application SQL still retrains some simplicity. On this topic, I think there's quite
abit of confusion and updates to the documentation would help greatly.
John